Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Antczak, 2017 ONCPD 1

Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Antczak, 2017 ONCPD 1

Indexed as: Ontario (College of Psychologists of Ontario) v. Antczak, 2017 ONCPD 1

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO

Between:

The College of Psychologists of Ontario

• and -

Dr. Ewa Antczak

Panel Members:

Mr. Robert Gauthier Chair (Professional Member of Council)

Ms. Kristen Bisbee Member (Public Appointee)

Ms. Judy Cohen Member (Public Appointee)

Mr. Tim Hill Member (Professional Member)

Dr. Marilyn Keyes Member (Professional Member of Council)

Hearing Date: September 7, 2017

Decision Date: September 7, 2017

Release of Written Reasons: October 17, 2017

Mr. David Porter for College of Psychologists of Ontario Mr. Todd J. Burke for Dr. Antczak Mr. Ian Roland, Independent Legal Counsel

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

A hearing of a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (the “Panel”) took place in Toronto on September 7 2017. The panel of the Discipline Committee was comprised of: Mr. Robert Gauthier, (Professional Member of the College, and Panel Chair), Ms. Kristen Bisbee (Public Member of Council), Ms. Judy Cohen (Public Member of Council), Mr. Tim Hill (Professional Member of the College), and Dr. Marilyn Keyes (Professional Member of Council). The College was represented by Mr. David Porter. Dr. Antczak was represented by Mr. Todd Burke. Mr. Ian Roland was present as counsel for the panel.

ORDERS

Pursuant to s.45 subsection 3 of the Code, it is ordered that there be a publication ban on the proceedings such that the identity (names) of the complainant, the children and the children’s mother are protected from public disclosure.

Consistent with this Order we have used the letter “W” to indicate the mother, the letter “X” to indicate the father, and the letter “Y” to indicate their six year old son.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

The Notice of Hearing, dated March 16 2017, set out the allegations against Dr. Antczak that the College proceeded with, as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Dr. Ewa Antczak is guilty of professional misconduct under section 51(1)(c) of the Code, the Psychology Act, 1991, c.38 (the “Act”) and the Regulations thereto, all as amended.

THE PARTICULARS OF THE ALLEGATIONS are as follows:

1. In the course of rendering professional services to Y, Dr. Antczak failed to maintain the standards of the profession contrary to section 1, paragraph 2 of O. Reg. 801/93. In particular, Dr. Antczak failed to maintain the following standards of the Standards of Professional Conduct (Revised March 27 2009):

(a) 5.1 (Practicing Within Boundaries of Competence);

(b) 7.2 (Obtaining Consent);

(c) 10.1 (Fees and Billing Arrangements);

(d) 14.3 (Rendering Opinions); and,

(e) 14.5 (Freedom from Bias).

2. Dr. Antczak provided services to Y for the purpose of prevention, assessment, diagnosis, intervention or other purpose in a situation in which a consent is required by law, without such a consent, contrary to section 1, paragraph 3 of O. Reg. 801/93.

3. Dr. Antczak provided a serviced that she knew or ought to have known was not likely to benefit the client, contrary to section 1, paragraph 9 of O. Reg. 801/93.

4. Dr. Antczak engaged in conduct or performed an act in the course of practising the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to section 1, paragraph 34 of O. Reg. 801/93.

By way of further particulars, it is alleged that:

(a) Between July 2015 and December 2015, Dr. Antczak provided psychological services to Y, who was six years old at the time when treatment started.

(b) Dr. Antczak’s services consisted of ongoing therapy and a psychological assessment which took place in September 2015.

(c) Following the assessment, Dr. Antczak produced an assessment report which contained recommendations regarding Y’s custody and access arrangements. Specifically, Dr. Antczak recommended that Y and his brother be placed in their mother’s custody.

(d) The services Dr. Antczak provided to Y went beyond the scope of her authorized areas of practice and authorized client populations.

(e) Dr. Antczak did not communicate with Y’s father or obtain his consent to treat and/or assess Y.

(f) Dr. Antczak did not communicate with Y’s father to gather information prior to making custody and access recommendations regarding Y and his brother.

(g) After Y’s father expressed his concerns to Dr. Antczak in a letter, she responded and sent Y’s father an invoice totalling $200 for a service described as “review of documents.”

The College withdrew reference to disgraceful and dishonourable conduct.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts, as follows:

1. Dr. Ewa Antczak is a psychologist whose practice includes a private practice in Mississauga, Ontario. Dr. Antczak’s authorized area of practice is limited to school psychology and her authorized client population is limited to children and adolescents.

2. On November 29 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Family Court Branch, issued an Order in Family Law proceedings between X and W ordering that the children of W and X shall “reside equally” with X and W on a stipulated basis requiring the children to reside with each parents on alternate weeks.

3. Pursuant to the Court Order, the Court stated:

“The Respondent W shall provide the Applicant X with all details regarding the children’s health, education and welfare including the names and contact information of all service providers, and the details of all programs the children are registered in.”

4. On July 3, 2015, W attended Dr. Antczak’s clinic for a consultation session concerning her son who was six years old at the time. W reported concerns regarding Y’s social withdrawal, aggressive behaviour and suicidal ideations. She advised that she and the child’s father, X, shared joint custody of Y and provided Dr. Antczak with a copy of the Court Order dated November 29 2012.

5. Between July 2015 and December 2015, Dr. Antczak provided psychological services to Y.

6. Dr. Antczak produced an assessment report in relation to Y.

7. The assessment report contained recommendations regarding Y’s custody and access arrangements. Dr. Antczak stated in her report:

“It is believed that Y would greatly benefit from staying at his mother’s place, where he feels happy and safe. It is also believed that W should become his primary residential caregiver. It is essential to provide Y with a sense of safety and stability that can be achieved by placing him and his younger brother in their mother’s custody who will become their primary residential caregiver and decision-maker. It is important that both boys have regular visitations with their father. The brothers should not be separated at any time, as it would have a significant negative impact on their psychological well-being.”

8. Prior to providing psychological services in relation to Y, and prior to the completion of the assessment report containing the custody/access recommendation, Dr. Antczak did not seek or obtain the consent of the child's father to conduct the assessment.

9. Furthermore, Dr. Antczak had no communication with X to gather information prior to making the custody and access recommendation regarding Y and his brother.

10. Dr. Antczak acknowledges that by providing the psychological services to Y between July 2015 and December 2015, she was engaged in clinical psychology, outside her authorized area of practice of school psychology.

11. Dr. Antczak agrees that by making a custody/access recommendation in the report, she was engaged in practice outside of the area of school psychology, which was her only authorized area of practice.

12. Dr. Antczak agrees that, while the terms of the Court Order of November 29, 2012, were somewhat ambiguous, and caused her to believe that she could proceed without the consent of Y’s father, she failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession in proceeding to provide the psychological services provided, and in particular in making custody/access recommendations, without the specific consent of X which was required by law in the circumstance.

13. On December 7 2015, X sent a letter to Dr. Antczak after he had seen a copy of the assessment report complaining about the fact that it had occurred without his consent, and that it made adverse custody/access recommendations in relation to him, without his knowledge, consent or participation.

14. In response to X’s complaint, Dr. Antczak acknowledged that she had not performed a full custody and access assessment, that the type of service does not form part of her practice, and she removed this section from the report and issued an amended report.

15. After X expressed his concerns to Dr. Antczak in the letter of December 7, 2015, Dr. Antczak sent him an invoice totalling $200 for services described as “review of documents”.

16. Dr. Antczak admits and accepts that by engaging in the conduct described herein, she committed professional misconduct, as alleged in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of Hearing. With respect to paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing, Dr. Antczak admits that the totality of her conduct, having regard to all of the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, and accordingly she admits the allegation of professional misconduct in paragraph 4 of the Notice of Hearing.

THE PLEA

Dr. Antczak admitted the allegations of misconduct in the Notice of Hearing that are set out in this Decision. The Panel accepted the plea.

THE DECISION

The Panel found the Statement of Agreed Facts that was entered into evidence at the hearing by agreement of the parties established the fact that Dr. Antczak was guilty of misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

THE PENALTY

ON READING the Notice of Hearing, dated March 16 2017 (the “Notice of Hearing”) and the Agreed Statement of Facts (the “ASF”) dated September 7 2017 and

UPON HEARING and accepting the joint submissions from counsel for the College and counsel for Dr. Antczak in respect of penalty, the Panel issues the following order dated September 7 2017:

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Dr. Antczak shall appear before the Panel to be reprimanded, and

2. The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms and conditions on Dr. Antczak’s Certificate of Registration as follows:

(i) Dr. Antczak must successfully complete the PROBE Course, at her expense, focusing on issues of ethics, and the restrictions and limitations on her authorized area of practice and authorized client population. Dr. Antczak must complete the course between three and nine months after the mentorship outlined in sections (ii) and (iii) below has begun;

(ii) Dr. Antczak is restricted in her practice by a condition that she must:

(a) practise under mentorship for 12 months with a mentor;

(b) Dr. Antczak must meet with the mentor for no less than one hour and no more than two hours on a bi-weekly basis for the first three months of the mentorship;

(c) thereafter, for the remaining nine months of the mentorship, Dr. Antczak must meet with the mentor no less than once a month and no more than bi-weekly, to be determined at the discretion of the mentor, for no less than one hour and no more than two hours; and

(d) fees for the mentorship will be paid by Dr. Antczak at a rate no greater than the current OPA rate of $225 per hour.

(iii) In order for Dr. Antczak to successfully fulfill the terms of the mentorship, she and the mentor will:

(a) review the restrictions on Dr. Antczak’s practice and limitations to her practice and client population;

(b) review Dr. Antczak’s practice and client files to ensure that her practice, including her private practice, is limited to school psychology in relation to children and adolescents;

(c) the mentor will make quarterly reports to the Registrar with respect to Dr. Antczak’s satisfactory compliance with the terms and conditions; and

(iv) any failure to comply with the terms of the mentorship are agreed to constitute professional misconduct for which Dr. Antczak may be further disciplined.

3. Dr. Antczak shall be responsible for the costs of the program of study and mentorship referred to in paragraph 2 of this order.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

1. “A Reprimand”

This serves as a specific and personal deterrent. It is seen as an appropriate means by which members of the Panel could make clear to the member their concerns with respect to the seriousness of her actions, in view of the impact of her misconduct on members of the public and members of the profession. Her actions bring the practice of psychology into disrepute. Furthermore, having the reprimand submitted to the Register allows the public to know how the Panel has reprimanded the member for her actions and thereby instilling greater confidence in the process of self-regulation.

2. “PROBE Course and Mentorship”

This is intended to be both educational and remedial as it will ensure that Dr. Antczak learns to practice only within her areas of competence and with her approved client populations. Proving successful completion of the course and the mentor making quarterly updates to the Registrar will ensure that the College is aware of Dr. Antczak’s progress in adhering to the standards of the profession.

3. “Ordering that Dr. Antczak be responsible for the costs of the program of study and mentorship.”

This serves as an appropriate requirement for Dr. Antczak who must take personal responsibility to assure the College and the public that she is able to meet the necessary standards of the profession in respect to remaining within her approved area of competence.

The Panel considered the penalty appropriate in terms of its severity for the following reasons:

1. Dr. Antczak agreed to the Order, which represents remedial education addressing those areas in which she had practiced below the professional standard;

2. There is a mechanism in place for monitoring her progress;

3. By admitting guilt, Dr. Antczak saved the College the time and expense of a contested hearing and save the witnesses the inconvenience and stresses inherent in such a hearing.

4. Dr. Antczak showed remorse, co-operated with the investigations and hearing process immediately, amended her report, and has no prior disciplinary proceedings.

REPRIMAND

Dr. Antczak waived her right of appeal and the reprimand was delivered to Dr. Antczak immediately following the hearing on September 7 2017. A copy of the reprimand will be placed on the College register.

Dated this 12th day of October, 2017

“Robert Gauthier” (Chair) Mr. Robert Gauthier, C.Psych.Assoc.

“Kristin Bisbee” Ms. Kristin Bisbee

“Marilyn Keyes” Dr. Marilyn Keyes, C.Psych.

“Judy Cohen” Ms. Judy Cohen

“Tim Hill” Mr. Tim Hill, C.Psych.

APPENDIX “A” – REPRIMAND DELIVERED TO DR. ANTCZAK

The panel of the Discipline Committee reprimands you for your unprofessional conduct. Your actions had potential serious and significant impact and consequences on your client and the public.

Your actions were not appropriate in that they were outside your area of competence and client population that is limited to school psychology with children and adolescents. You made a custody and access determination and recommendation that were outside your area of competence and you did so without the father’s knowledge or consent; both of these actions were serious breaches of the College’s Standards of Professional Conduct.

The panel acknowledges your willingness to reach and remain within the Standards of Professional Conduct approved by the College of Psychologists of Ontario through the penalty that has been imposed upon you. The panel expects you to comply with the jointly agreed upon Order and warn that failure to do so could result in further disciplinary actions.